Then seriously. I ask you, what's the point of tax breaks for the rich? Every single one of the arguments I've ever heard from Libertarians and Conservatives has been that it increases employment. Your objection to my suggestion points toward the generally held belief that that's just an excuse, and your real objection to taxes has nothing to do with macroeconomics.

Tax breaks for the rich and businesses should be contingent on hiring, wage increases and reducing the wage gap. Period. It makes no sense to inject money into businesses to encourage them to hire, just hoping that's what they do with it when they get it. Tell them if they hire, we deduct. If they don't hire, they get nothing.

The problem with that approach is that it sets up a tax incentive for an economy's businesses to be overstaffed, and reduces the incentive to look for efficiencies in high-tech production methods and automation.

Then another economy comes up with a cheaper way to produce higher quality products, and you're done.

Then seriously. I ask you, what's the point of tax breaks for the rich?

First to reduce the disproportionate theft visited upon them. Second, the effect of them will create jobs and wealth for the rest of us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Every single one of the arguments I've ever heard from Libertarians and Conservatives has been that it increases employment.

Yes, they do. But the tax cuts should not be technocratically engineered by a bunch of morons to require them to hire. The jobs will come if you let people have the freedom to save, invest and spend their own money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Your objection to my suggestion points toward the generally held belief that that's just an excuse, and your real objection to taxes has nothing to do with macroeconomics.

Yes, they do. But the tax cuts should not be technocratically engineered by a bunch of morons to require them to hire. The jobs will come if you let people have the freedom to save, invest and spend their own money.

This is a theory, one that has yet to be proven, and one that has in many cases been proven to be incorrect.

As I said before, most of the people pushing supply-side economics are people who directly benefit, themselves, from supply-side efforts. This is their ulterior motive. It has nothing at all to do with the well-being of other people, except as a convenient excuse.

The opposite is not true. People who support socialist policy do NOT necessarily benefit directly from such policy. This is a very good way to determine motives and intellectual honesty.

The problem with that approach is that it sets up a tax incentive for an economy's businesses to be overstaffed, and reduces the incentive to look for efficiencies in high-tech production methods and automation.

Then another economy comes up with a cheaper way to produce higher quality products, and you're done.

There is a balance that will be found. The US cannot, for the sake of the worker, afford to compete as a discount supplier.

The moral thing would be to work toward improving the quality of life of the poorest people as the first priority. Now if you honestly believe the means to that goal is making the rich richer, and "trickling down", then ok, though I disagree that this theory works, and history stands on my side.

The moral thing would be to work toward improving the quality of life of the poorest people first.

It's a funny thing about moral relativists like yourself. You all think that you can construct a moral and just society by only being moral and just sometimes. And then you're genuinely shocked when we don't have a moral and just society. Weird.

It's a funny thing about moral relativists like yourself. You all think that you can construct a moral and just society by only being moral and just sometimes. And then you're genuinely shocked when we don't have a moral and just society. Weird.

It's a funny thing about moral specifists like yourself. You think "morals" are black and white, and cannot be prioritized, yet you always prioritize the "morals" that serve the self over the morals that serve the greater good.

There's a good book you should try reading about morality. It's called the Bible.

It mentions helping the poor, specifically and directly, dozens of times. It never, not once, mentions homosexuality or abortion specifically and directly. Which "morals" do you think are more important in that book?

It's a funny thing about moral specifists like yourself. You think "morals" are black and white, and cannot be prioritized, yet you always prioritize the "morals" that serve the self over the morals that serve the greater good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

There's a good book you should try reading about morality. It's called the Bible.

I do. I take it very seriously too. When you do also, then you can lecture on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

It mentions helping the poor, specifically and directly, dozens of times.

I know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

It never, not once, mentions homosexuality or abortion specifically and directly.

It's important, for your argument, to have that qualifier at the end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Which "morals" do you think are more important in that book?

Of the ones you listed or generally?

If I were rank one single, general, broad "moral precept from the Bible above all others it would have to be Luke 10:27 (see also Matthew 22:37-39 or Mark 12:30-31):

Quote:

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

The moral thing would be to work toward improving the quality of life of the poorest people as the first priority. Now if you honestly believe the means to that goal is making the rich richer, and "trickling down", then ok, though I disagree that this theory works, and history stands on my side.

Hey, let's couch the argument in an old Chinese proverb: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

It's a funny thing about moral specifists like yourself. You think "morals" are black and white, and cannot be prioritized, yet you always prioritize the "morals" that serve the self over the morals that serve the greater good.

There's a good book you should try reading about morality. It's called the Bible.

It mentions helping the poor, specifically and directly, dozens of times. It never, not once, mentions homosexuality or abortion specifically and directly. Which "morals" do you think are more important in that book?

Another reason why religious imperatives need to be carried out by individuals and church organizations and church and state must remain firmly separated. Government is just a "mission" away from becoming your theocratic headquarters.

The moral thing would be to work toward improving the quality of life of the poorest people as the first priority. Now if you honestly believe the means to that goal is making the rich richer, and "trickling down", then ok, though I disagree that this theory works, and history stands on my side.

How is taking assets (earned) from one person and giving it (unearned) to someone else moral?? That is NOT the same thing as your suggestion of "working toward improving the quality of life of the poorest..."
The U.S. is already the world leader in "working toward improving the quality of life of the poorest...". Our poor have a much higher standard of living than any other "poor" people on this globe! In fact, what we consider below poverty, would be considered "middle class" anywhere else in the world outside of North America and Europe!

We can certainly "working toward improving the quality of life of the poorest..." without government mandated redistribution of wealth.
Even if the federal government mandated 100% taxes and re-distributed equal $ to every person, there would still be different classes... the more motivated would just turn to barter and "favors" as a means of wealth-building. such things would be invisible to the government (compared to cash), but within society they would still allow for one person to be "richer" than another.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

Give me one real-world example where supply-side economic policy has worked long-term in any nation in the history of the world. Show me the country where taxes are lower now than they used to be yet standard of living is better.

I can give you plenty of examples of where social policy (and higher taxes for the rich) has improved a populace's standard of living.

How is taking assets (earned) from one person and giving it (unearned) to someone else moral??

Easy. I am the King of a society. Maybe I offer jobs to you at such a low wage that you can barely afford to feed your family. Maybe I just skip the wage and enslave you. I earn a billion dollars off of your efforts. You have no choice, you have to work, and you can't afford to move to another place.

Easy. I am the King of a society. Maybe I offer jobs to you at such a low wage that you can barely afford to feed your family. Maybe I just skip the wage and enslave you. I earn a billion dollars off of your efforts. You have no choice, you have to work, and you can't afford to move to another place.

I've earned the assets. You've earned nothing.

And this relates to the free market system in what way exactly? Simply your caricature of what you think it is?

The more the rich are able to profit on the backs of the worker, the more feudal our society becomes. A tiered taxation system moves to adjust that slightly, so that even the serfs can survive comfotably.

The rich have the power to take advantage of the working class, and they do.

The more the rich are able to profit on the backs of the worker, the more feudal our society becomes. A tiered taxation system moves to adjust that slightly, so that even the serfs can survive comfotably.

The rich have the power to take advantage of the working class, and they do.

I think it odd that some have trouble seeing this obvious point.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Homosexual behaviour is directly referenced both in the Old Testament laws and in the New Testament epistles.

No, it is not. There are countless interpretations that disagree with yours. Nothing is stated clearly. On the other hand, helping the poor is again and again the main focus of the entire book.

Quote:

This is hopefully my last post on this offshoot. This is an economic policy thread, and we should respect that.

This is directly pertinent to this thread. The Bible says to help the poor, yet you all complain that the rich pay too much taxes compared to the poor and, "it's not faaaaair... waah waaah waaahhh!!!!!"

It's not fair that to some a five million dollar house is not enough, while others go hungry. That's not fair. And, as I pointed out in this "offshoot", it's not Christian.

Anyone arguing for a flat tax, for starters. And that would include you.

That isn't necessarily true.

First, if government spending was substantially reduced (and it should be) then taxes could be reduced for everyone.

Second, the revised tax burden, if spread among more people would also reduce the amount of burden that any one individual would have further.

Third, the substantial reduction in taxes, government spending and general government economic destruction would so help the poor that, again, whatever small amount of taxes these poor would pay would be nothing.

Forth, reducing the tax burden on the poor is quite simply not the best way to help the poor (nor is government welfare by the way).

Fifth, some exemption could be provided for the most extreme poor for which even the significantly reduced government tax burden was still a burden could be implemented if the other things didn't help them as much as it help others.

Sixth, reducing the tax burden on all people would let them keep the money they have earned which they can use to help poor people more directly rather than through government welfare. Or, better yet, by creating and expanding enterprises that employ people (including the poor) not to mention producing more, better and cheaper products and services for everyone (including the poor.)

Seventh, if you really want to help the poor get out of poverty, de-progressivize the income tax or stop taxing income altogether. The progressive income tax should be more properly called the "anti-wealth accumulation tax" or the "keep poor people poor tax." If you understood this you'd be much less enthusiastic about it. Assuming you actually cared about the poor enough to understand the real effects of government policies rather than the imagined, hoped for and good intentions of them.

Finally, arguing that taxes should (and can) be reduced on the rich is not the same as making the argument you claim is being made which was:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

yet you all complain that the rich pay too much taxes compared to the poor and, "it's not faaaaair... waah waaah waaahhh!!!!!"

But if you wish to argue against the caricatures in your head, so be it. I'm sure it's much easier than dealing with reality, real people and real statements.

What you don't seem to get is that I want to see lower taxes for everyone. Less government involvement for everyone's lives. Let government control of everyone's lives. Less government immorality for everyone. More freedom for everyone.

It's become ever more clear from your posts (and those of your fellow liberals) that you do not share the goal of trying to get more freedom for everyone, perhaps because some people are less deserving of it in your view. It's clear that you only value freedom for some people of your choosing. Your brand of morality (for all of your Bible-spouting*) divides people into different groups or classes who each deserve different treatment under the law and differing levels of freedom based on whatever calculus you deem to be the right formula. That's an extremely dangerous view that leads to great horrors, the least of which is slavery.

*You ought to read your Bible a bit more too. While God does command his people to help the poor, this is an individual command. It is action that is to come from the hearts of individuals and not be forcibly coerced from unwilling individuals through government. Additionally, God created a world in which people are to have freedom and liberty. Free will and choice. He does not coerce people into His prescribed morality, but rather "lures" them into God-honoring behavior through His love, grace and mercy and their grateful response to those things. So before you step up to the pulpit again, you might consider a more thorough and comprehensive reading and understanding of this book of God's.

Anyone arguing for a flat tax, for starters. And that would include you.

Some of us that argue for a flat tax couldn't care less about what the bible says. It's a nice work of literature, but needs to be filed along side other FICTIONAL works that just happen to include some historical references that make them APPEAR as factual to the uneducated.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...